Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.That's pretty specific isn't it? Anyone w/ a glimmer of intelligence can see that I nor anyone that have been the recipients of Ladd/CSGV's 'Insurrectionist Award' have levied War nor given aid and comfort to our enemies. So why is the COTUS so detailed in this definition? Why let's ask James Madison in writings that Ladd ignores in his effort to subvert the Bill of Rights.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
"As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author."So basically they knew that wingnuts like Ladd Everitt would start throwing out the charge of 'Traitor' against anything they didn't like, hoping to smear people since they can't win their argument on their own foundations. And just like the Founders felt, we should take claims claims as seriously. In other words, not at all.
– James Madison, Federalist No. 43, "The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered (continued)," Independent Journal, January 23, 1788; Rossiter pp. 269-270